1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of the appellant for rape under Section 376 of the Penal Code but modified the sentence from 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone—approximately 5 years and 2 months. The Court found the prosecutrix’s testimony cogent, trustworthy and corroborated by FSL findings, witness depositions and her immediate conduct. It rejected the appellant’s claims of false implication and contradictions. However, considering the mitigating circumstances—including 23 years since the incident, satisfactory jail conduct, family responsibilities, and the prosecutrix’s statement that she did not wish to pursue harsh punishment—the Court considered sentence reduction appropriate without disturbing the conviction. The appeal was thus partly allowed.
2. Facts
The prosecution alleged that on 27 June 2002 at around 2:45 p.m., the appellant entered the home of the prosecutrix in Village Jareda, tied her hands, gagged her with cloth, sent her young brother Dinesh to buy gutka, switched the TV volume high, and raped her. She immediately informed her husband upon his return and lodged a report the same evening at PS Delhi Cantt. The appellant was arrested and medically examined, and exhibits were seized. The trial court convicted him and imposed a 10-year sentence. On appeal, the appellant argued false implication due to alleged hostility with the prosecutrix’s husband and pointed to absence of injuries. The High Court evaluated the record, the testimonies, the cross-examination, and the FSL reports before issuing its decision.
3. Issues
The Court considered:
- Whether the prosecutrix’s testimony was reliable and sufficient for conviction.
- Whether contradictions and absence of injuries undermined the prosecution case.
- Whether corroboration was legally required.
- Whether FSL results supported the factum of rape.
- Whether mitigating circumstances justified reduction of the 10-year sentence.
- Whether long delay, family hardship, good jail conduct, and prosecutrix’s present stance warranted sentencing modification.
4. Appellant’s arguments
The appellant contended that the prosecution story was improbable and riddled with contradictions: the prosecutrix did not know the appellant, there was alleged enmity with her husband, and no injuries were found. He argued that the trial court based its judgment on conjecture. He maintained that the evidence was insufficient to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt and that the prosecutrix had been “tutored.” Alternatively, he sought reduction of sentence on the grounds of age (48 years), poor socio-economic condition, dependent ailing wife suffering from mental illness, two unmarried children, and his work as a labourer. He emphasised that he did not misuse bail, displayed good conduct in custody, and had already undergone more than five years of imprisonment.
5. Respondent’s arguments
The State argued that the prosecutrix’s consistent testimony, coupled with immediate reporting, medical examination, and corroborative FSL findings, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It asserted that alleged contradictions were immaterial. The absence of injuries did not dilute the prosecutrix’s testimony, which remained unshaken. PW-6’s deposition additionally supported the prosecution narrative regarding the appellant’s presence and actions. The State stressed that rape convictions can safely rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, and that the trial court rightly relied on that testimony. While opposing acquittal, the State left sentencing to the Court’s discretion in view of the long pendency and mitigating factors.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated settled law: conviction for rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. Corroboration is a matter of prudence, not a legal mandate, and minor discrepancies cannot undermine an otherwise truthful account. The Court relied on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh (2019) and Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025), which reaffirmed that medical evidence is not indispensable, and absence of injuries does not negate rape. The Court further noted that FSL confirmation of semen stains on the prosecutrix’s petticoat, the cloth used by the appellant, and the appellant’s underwear provided material corroboration. Thus, the legal threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt was satisfied.
7. Precedent analysis
The Court cited multiple Supreme Court decisions:
1. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh (2019) 16 SCC 759
Held that conviction can rest entirely on the prosecutrix’s testimony if credible.
Applied: Used to affirm that no corroboration was necessary.
2. Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1610)
Held that credible prosecutrix testimony suffices; absence of medical injuries is not fatal.
Applied: Reinforced the probative value of the prosecutrix’s account.
3. Lalliram v. State of M.P. (2008) 10 SCC 69
Held that injuries are not sine qua non; need depends on case facts.
Applied: Absence of injuries did not weaken prosecution case.
4. Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of A.P. (1977) 3 SCC 287, and Pramod Kumar Mishra (2023)
These judgments emphasise sentencing reform, rehabilitation, and weighing mitigating circumstances.
Applied: Basis for reducing the sentence while upholding conviction.
8. Court’s reasoning
The High Court emphasised that the prosecutrix gave a clear, consistent account: the appellant restrained her, gagged her, tied her hands, switched the TV volume high, sent the child out twice, and raped her. Her testimony matched her FIR and medical history and was corroborated by FSL reports identifying semen of AB group on multiple exhibits linked to the appellant and the crime. PW-6 Dinesh’s testimony about being sent to buy gutka and seeing his sister distressed further supported the narrative. The Court found no material contradictions in cross-examination and rejected the false-implication theory.
On sentencing, the Court acknowledged that the offence is serious but recognised significant mitigating factors: lapse of 23 years, appellant’s family circumstances, his 5+ years of imprisonment, good conduct, and the prosecutrix’s statement that she did not wish to prolong the matter. Balancing proportionality, penology principles, and societal aims, the Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone.
9. Conclusion
The High Court upheld the conviction for rape, finding the evidence overwhelming and the prosecutrix credible. However, it held that justice would be served by reducing the sentence in view of extraordinary delay, humanitarian considerations, and the guidance of sentencing precedents. The sentence was altered to the period already undergone. All pending applications were disposed of.
10. Implications
This judgment underscores two critical principles: (1) Courts continue to uphold the sufficiency of a prosecutrix’s testimony in rape cases when credible, and (2) sentencing must remain sensitive to individual circumstances, delay, rehabilitation prospects, and societal realities. It clarifies that while conviction for sexual offences must be uncompromising where evidence supports it, sentence modification may be appropriate when weighed against decades of pendency, positive conduct, and familial hardship. The decision reinforces fidelity to both victim protection and proportional sentencing jurisprudence.
CASE LAW REFERENCES
1. Manga Singh (2019) 16 SCC 759
Conviction can be based on prosecutrix’s sole testimony if credible.
Applied directly by the Court.
2. Deepak Kumar Sahu (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1610)
Absence of injuries not fatal; solitary testimony is sufficient.
Reaffirmed Court’s evidentiary approach.
3. Lalliram (2008) 10 SCC 69
Injuries not mandatory; context matters.
Used to dismiss defence reliance on medical report.
4. Mohammad Giasuddin (1977) 3 SCC 287)
Sentencing principles focusing on rehabilitation and mitigation.
Provided basis for reducing sentence.
FAQs
1. Why did the Court uphold the conviction despite absence of injuries?
Because injuries are not mandatory to prove rape, and the prosecutrix’s testimony was credible and corroborated by FSL findings and witness statements.
2. Why was the sentence reduced to the period already undergone?
Due to the 23-year-old incident, 21-year-old conviction, appellant’s family hardship, good jail conduct, and the prosecutrix’s desire not to continue the litigation.
3. Can a rape conviction be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony?
Yes. Courts consistently hold that credible testimony of the prosecutrix requires no corroboration unless circumstances demand.